Joel Naga
The ULB imbroglio has brought to fore many voices, particularly the divisive assertion that patriarchy in Naga society EQUALS subjugation of women, and that this patriarchal mindset is responsible for the opposition to women reservation and the present mayhem. This subjugation narrative has been widely carried as the reality in mainstream media esp. in mainland India. It’s embarrassing to think that the rest of the world should now have such a low opinion about Naga men- belonging to the category of regressive mindsets and of course, unrelenting rascals. It’s frustrating that the ULB issue should be widely (mis)interpreted by our own womenfolk –and by outside activists, as a gender struggle against Naga male dominance.
Firstly, what has been left unsaid is that there’re many women who are (1) against any form of women reservation per se (2) against 33% reservation in the sense it seems to infringe the spirit of Article 371A. Secondly, the tribal hohos too have expressed that the issue is not about opposition to women reservation in the ULBs but the proposed elections to be held under the present format. Therefore, the argument that patriarchal mindset, read male dominance, is responsible for the ULB fracas is erroneous. The greater danger with such views is that it poisons the whole atmosphere with Women Vs Men narrative when the context for such never existed in our society.
To rant against patriarchy is to miss the point. Take the example of polity. As understood, under the historical context of the head hunting culture, women were necessarily excluded from decision making processes (Khekiye K. Sema). With changing times, women were incorporated in the decision-making process, as evidenced in the Village Development Boards (VDBs). Ironically, women activists use this ‘there should be atleast one woman in the VDBs’ clause (not 25% reservation) to further their point for reservation in the ULBs which is a fallacious argument to begin with. An important distinction between the VDBs and ULBs is that women quota in the VDBs was NOT brought about by an act of parliament nor is constitutionally mandated. This policy was formulated by the RD Department as per its competence under the Communitisation policy. Therefore, the argument that if men did not object to reservation in the VDBs then, why the sudden objection to 33% in the ULBs (?) is non-maintainable.
On economic front, every single Naga family in the village complemented each other in the fields, thereby compensating the need for hired labour. Like the Israeli Kibbutz, the sex of a member was almost irrelevant here. It should be understood that such an arrangement was not always the same in early or emerging societies. According to Margaret Mead in her “Sex and Temperament in 3 Emerging Societies,” she noted that among the Tchambuli tribe of Papua New Guinea, women were more dominant; the women carried out the economic activities whereas men sat at home and cried. While later researches have concluded that she made extreme observations, the general conclusion was that “neither sex competed for dominance.” Like Nagas, the necessary equation of their time and circumstance was simply not conducive for power play of dominance and subjugation- such as the practice of low caste women in Kerela baring their breasts in the presence of high caste men. As writers have pointed out (Charles Chasie), the historical circumstance of Nagas being patrilineal ensured that only sons, not the daughters, could inherit the land but such an evolved system prevented Khasi-like situation taking shape. Our patriarchy was an evolved system designed not to propagate the male species but their way of life which the British in some cases described as ‘pure democracy’. Despite themselves, they formulated that inbreeding could lead to species-extinction and hence the 7-year taboo rule. They understood that honour and respect for parents, elders and widows were not only virtues but the very essence for survival in their harsh environment; the Ghats of Varanasi teeming with thousands of discarded and destitute widows comes to mind as an anti-thesis. There are a million and one things a human mind can conjure up, including the ability to butcher 6 million souls with sound moral justification. Surely our ancestors could have birthed Sati, practiced female infanticide and dowry, ritualized forms of Morung prostitution- as in the temple prostitutes of the Greek city states/south India, harboured female slaves (war trophies) - as practiced in ‘pure democracies’ of Greek city-states, imposed retributive justice - one wonders why these head-hunting savages didn’t impose eye for an eye kind of justice given their primitiveness?, etc. Despite the modernity of our times, things haven’t changed much. Therefore, to actually make headlines that Naga men feel threatened by the rise of a new generation of Naga women- academically brilliant, intellectually coherent, and economically strong - is astounding when such should be a matter of pride for all of us. One is tempted to question whether this analysis is based on the ground reality or an expression of feminist ‘feelings’?
The ULB issue is not about gender war. The government failed to address the genuine apprehension of the Nagas in general- that the Nagaland Municipal (Third Amendment) Act 2006 could infringe Art 371 A. Thus, it was the ineptitude of the state government in gauging the mood and resolve of the tribal hohos and the JCC which led to the situation. They were contemptuously labeled as having a political agenda- as is the usual defence when faced with critical situations- so much so that the government began to see the imprints of Rio everywhere. Rio in the process acquired an almost embarrassing larger – than- life image (though the ‘Rio is the answer’ slogan remains unfulfilled). The cursory manner in which a one day consultative meet with civil society organizations was organized by the government on the ULB elections and women reservation didn’t help matters since the reality is that even most educated Nagas would be hard pressed to explain the full form of FIR. Under the circumstances, the learned Addl. Advocate General Kakheto Sema defending the government and the ULB elections came across as coloured and not the Whole Truth.
One understood from the write-ups of Kakheto Sema (and later A. Zhimomi) that Article 243T under Part IX-A is a constitutional mandate which cannot be avoided by the state government. In layman’s term, ULB elections should be held with the 33% reservation for women clause, and indeed polling was conducted on 1st Feb (But this ‘should be held’ contention already stands contradicted in the light of the State Election Commission declaring the ULB polls ‘null and void’). Whereas, the Nagaland Bar Association (NBA) represented by V Hukavi Zhimomi and Imkong Jamir, has asserted that the state legislature has full powers to legislate on the ULBs (according to 7th Schedule); and whereas the NM Act 2001 was enacted by the Nagaland legislature without any reference to Part IX – A of the Constitution with its contentious Article 243T mandating 1/3rd seats in the ULBs. In other words, they’ve asserted that the ULB elections CAN be held without 33% reservation! Likewise, while A Zhimomi asserts that the ‘ordinance’ route (to be passed) by the PM and his cabinet is the only option to exempt the imposition of Part IX- A upon the state, the NBA alludes that the State Legislature is fully competent enough to carry out the same. The two totally divergent and contradictory stands have confused everybody. Perhaps, in the scheme of things related to the interpretation of the Indian constitution, there can be no consensus, only majority opinions. Interpretation seems to be the key here which again may be the reason why the learned counsels have NOT opined on whether Part –IX A of the constitution violates the spirit of Article 371A. This is important because judging from their wariness, it can be inferred that the constitution cannot be rigidly compartmentalized as there’re always rooms for connecting dots between the Articles or Clauses. In which case, violation of Art 371 A is all too probable. This is precisely the fear which the JCC and the Hohos had aired; with the government unable to convince the masses. Therefore, shifting the goal post from women reservation apprehension to property tax doesn’t arise. Both are equally relevant. Perhaps liberal minds would do well not to rush to conclusions that the Hohos’ fear of 33% reservation infringing on Article 371A stands on wrong footing. The government, instead of tinkering with possible dilution of Art 371A, should explore the NBA argument that the state legislature is within its powers to enact a municipal law befitting to the social and economic conditions of the state. The violability of Article 371A through future Constitutional amendments is a clear danger. A day may come when the total sum of all these Constitutional amendments may make the Article totally redundant notwithstanding the words… “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution….” Therefore, a concerted effort has to be made to convince the PMO and the Indian Parliament that (a) all constitutional amendments incorporated post 1963 – that is, the year Art 371 A was inserted into the constitution- be reviewed keeping in mind the possibility of violability of Article 371 A. Imagine a hypothetical situation- would the authors of the 16-Point Agreement have said yes to Part-IX A if they were somehow told that it was going to be introduced in the future, 1992? (b) Any future amendments should be subject to automatic review if later found violative of Art 371A, notwithstanding the assent of 2/3rd of the states. Meanwhile, Patriarchy cannot be the Last Word on the issue.
